[LLVMdev] Proposal: extended MDString syntax

[Nadav Rotem]

On Jun 26, 2013, at 4:18 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:

> (Note, this is the first I've heard of this plan and just figured it out myself)

Yes, this is also the first time I heard about this and I haven’t had a chance to think about this problem too deeply.

> 
> So inverting it so that MI contains LLVM IR instead of the other way
> around? Then we'd need a serialization format for MI that happened to
> include a way of serializing LLVM IR within. From a quick "hey, this
> seems reasonable" the idea of embedding the MI into the IR rather than
> the other way around seems to make sense since we have already have
> code to serialize the IR.
> 
> The only other idea I've seen was an intern project that really didn't
> go very far a few years ago of using *AML (one of them, I can't recall
> which). I think Bob had some idea of finishing the project, but I'm
> not sure where it's going.
> 
> Do you have any other ideas or some ideas as to why you'd prefer one
> direction rather than the other?
> 
> -eric

I think that the two alternatives that are obvious are for the MF to contain the IR, or for the IR to contain the MF.  Alternatively, they can live in parallel and the MF may reference the IR.  I am not sure what is the right approach here, but my gut feeling is that metadata is not necessarily the right container for MF. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130626/833629e2/attachment.html>